Why does unemployment arise, and what can be done about it? Economists favor different theories, depending on whether they take a more Classical or a more Keynesian view.

In Classical economic theory, unemployment is seen as a sign that smooth labor market functioning is being obstructed in some way. The Classical approach assumes that markets behave as described by the idealized supply-and-demand model: the labor market is seen as though it were a single, static market, characterized by perfect competition, spot transactions, and institutions for double-auction bidding.

Such an abstract labor market is depicted in Figure 1. In this case “quantity” is not measured as a number of things (like apartments or swimsuits) but rather a quantity of labor services. We can think of this quantity as being measured, for example, by the number of workers working full days over a given time period. The “price” of labor is the (real) wage (in this case, per day). Workers supply labor, while employers demand it. We assume that every unit of labor services is the same, and every worker in this market will get exactly the same wage. The equilibrium wage in this example is WE and the equilibrium quantity of labor supplied is at L_E.

In Figure 1, where the market is free to adjust, there is no involuntary unemployment. Everyone who wants a job at the going wage gets one. There may be many people who would offer their services on this market if the wage were higher—as the portion of the supply curve to the right of L_E demonstrates. But, given the currently offered wage rate, these people have made a rational choice not to participate in this labor market.

Within the Classical model, the only way true, involuntary unemployment can exist is if something gets in the way of market forces. The presence of a legal minimum wage is commonly pointed to as one such factor. As illustrated in Figure 2, if employers are required to pay a minimum wage of W* (“W-star”) that is above the equilibrium wage, this model predicts that they will hire fewer workers. At an artificially high wage W*, employers want to hire only L_D workers. But at that wage, L_S people want jobs. There is a situation of surplus. The market is, in this case, prevented from adjusting to equilibrium by legal restrictions on employers. Now there are people who want a job at the going wage, but can’t find one. That is, they are unemployed.

The minimum wage only affects a portion of the workforce, however—people who are relatively unskilled, including many teenagers. But unemployment tends to affect people at all wage levels. Classical economists suggest other “market interference” reasons for unemployment, as well. The economy might provide less than the optimal number of jobs, they believe, because:

• regulations on businesses reduce their growth, restricting growth in the demand for labor
• labor-related regulations (such as safety regulations, mandated benefits, or restrictions on layoffs and firings) and labor union activities increase the cost of labor to businesses, causing them to turn towards labor-saving technologies and thus reducing job growth
• public “safety net” policies such as disability insurance and unemployment insurance reduces employment by causing people to become less willing to seek work

Labor-market recommendations derived from a Classical point of view tend to focus on getting rid of regulations and social programs that are seen as obstructing proper market behavior. Like other Classical proposals, such labor market proposals assume that the economy works best under the principle of laissez-faire – “leave it alone.”

Read Full Article…

The concept of environmental justice has surfaced and taken shape over the last thirty years. The first time environmental justice hit the radar screen was in 1976 at a conference entitled: “Working for Environmental and Economic Justice and Jobs” sponsored by the United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) and several other organizations. This conference was held at the Walter May Reuther Family Education Center located at Black Lake near Onaway, Michigan. Over the years, people of color and low-income groups, through struggle to protect their communities from environmental insults, have brought meaning to the concept of environmental justice. Although Love Canal, New York was not the first or the worst of contaminated sites, the struggle that took place there did raise the nation’s consciousness of health impacts of chemical and industrial waste long-buried in a mostly white neighborhood near Niagara Falls, New York. The Warren County, North Carolina struggle to prevent the burial of PCBs in a landfill in predominantly black area was the first time the connection was made between civil rights and environmental protection. As people struggled in communities across the country for safer and cleaner environments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was propelled to define environmental justice as follows:

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the publics contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.

The EPA definition can be analyzed from the taxonomy of distributive, procedural, corrective, and social justice. Distributive justice in practice has not meant a redistribution of pollutants equally to all communities, but the enforcement of the equal protection of the law or pollution preventions strategies so that pollutions will not be distributive to any community. The Agency places considerable emphasis upon procedural justice to make rules and regulations transparent in order for communities to access the decision-making process. We can also see that corrective justice is one of the main thrusts of the Agency where it uses legislation, rules and regulations, or lawsuits to reward, compensate, or punish guilty parties for damages done. Social justice attempts to bring about a more just and humane society as a whole, which would put this beyond the scope of EPA policy. Although EPA policy seems to be strongest in support of procedural and corrective justice, it is weakest in support of distributive and social justice. The EPA definition and the taxonomy of definitions, except perhaps for social justice, take a short-term approach to environmental justice.

Policies to address short-term problems are not the solution. To implement such policies is like fighting a rear guard action. Therefore, we must be visionary and be willing to plan for the future or we will blunder into it with all the alphabet soup of social and environmental problems that have been intensified over the years. The following definition of environmental justice is more visionary and broader in scope:

Environmental justice are those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors policies, and decisions that support sustainable development, so that people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing the “isms”. Environmental justice is supported by decent-paying and safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. Environmental justice communities are where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered and where distributive justice prevails.

This definition makes environmental justice much boarder than the EPA definition. It is not only concerned about short-term policies, but long-term policies that will affect people and the communities they live in. It gives a vision of what an environmentally just community would look like; it reads like a community of the future. To realize this vision of the future will require us to develop cities and systems that mimic nature. In nature there is virtually no waste in that the waste for one life-form becomes the food for another one. Therefore we must build cities and production systems where the waste from one system becomes the raw materials for the other. We must build cities that mimic nature where there will no longer be a need to drill for oil or to mine for coal. Although systems that mimic nature will go a long way to eliminate sickness, death, and environmental degradation, such systems fail to address the issue of equity, justice, and fairness, which are critical to an environmentally just society. Without equity and fairness there can be no justice.

Read Full Article…

Logistic population growth models density dependent population regulation. The model assumes that when populations increase in size (1) the per capita birth rate decreases (as a result of competition for resources) and/or (2) the per capita death rate increases (as a result of competition for resources, predation, or the increased spread of disease). Thus, there is a population size at which the per capita birth rate equals the per capita death rate. At this population size, known as the carrying capacity, the population growth rate is equal to zero.

Read Full Article…